linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Device tree updates for v3.12

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFzBbKXJnaG_6X8Fff_APGJ3EkbG0thsbithDXtiEJjdHA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:50:37 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Tim Bird <tbird20d@...il.com>
Cc:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Device tree updates for v3.12

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Tim Bird <tbird20d@...il.com> wrote:
> How much time does it add to boot to feed the device tree into the
> random number pool.
>
> Some of the device trees are expected to get pretty big.  If it's over
> a millisecond, IMHO, it should be configurable (but this is not).

It's detinitely not a very fast operation. "add_device_randomness()"
does four full "mix_pool_bytes()" operations, and those each iterate
over the input set one byte at a time.

It was kind of designed for things like mixing in ethernet MAC
addresses etc, so at the time that was written, the thinking was that
it would be just a few bytes, maybe tens of bytes.

I don't know how big flattened device trees can be, but I guess we're
talking a couple of kB?

So it might even be a better idea to feed the device tree to a hashing
function (eg SHA1 or even just MD5), and then just mix in the hash. At
least most block hash functions do things a word at a time. It does
*not* need to be cryptographically secure, so MD5 would be plenty good
enough - the only point of the hash would be to give a meaningful
number of result bits from the source array.

Of course, maybe even the stupid add_device_randomness() is fast
enough. I just wanted to point out that it definitely isn't some
optimized thing.

                Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/